3 ms·
Your recollection is faulty; RMS was an absolute pleasure to work with. Fast, clean and efficient, and concurrent access was pain-free too. RMS supported stream
by gaius 9y ago
Your recollection is faulty; RMS was an absolute pleasure to work with. Fast, clean and efficient, and concurrent access was pain-free too. RMS supported streams as well as records.
Others have mentioned SQLite as replacement for fopen()... that’s a fairly RMS-like experience on modern systems
(I wonder if this is being downvoted because people think RMS means Stallman)
- jordanb 9y agoI think you guys are arguing worse is better versus the right thing. :) Unix made for very simple filesystem internals, with a crappy interface (worse is better). RMS was a very complicated filesystem with a nice interface (the right thing).
- davidgould 9y agoRMS was an absolute pleasure to work with. Fast, clean and efficient, and concurrent access was pain-free too. RMS supported streams as well as records. Hummmph, it was kind of a pleasure on a VAX, but on a PDP-11 under RSX or RSTS/E the libraries for it ate so much of the (16 bit) address space that it became a real challenge to fit a useful application into memory. Also, it only sort of supported streams, they were not really byte streams like Unix, but variable length record streams with CRLF marking the record delimiters. So porting Unix code to VMS was never quite as straightforward as one hoped.